One of the biggest players in Obamacare's exchanges says 15 to 20 percent of its new customers aren't paying their first premium—which means they're not actually covered.

The latest data come from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, whose members—known collectively as "Blues" plans—are participating in the exchanges in almost every state. Roughly 80 to 85 percent of people who selected a Blues plan through the exchanges went on to pay their first month's premium, a BCBSA spokeswoman said Wednesday.

The latest update estimates that all but four of the 30 Fortune 500 companies that paid an average negative federal income tax rate from 2008 to 2010 continued to do so for 2011. Among the companies listed are Pepco Holdings and General Electric.

A study released Tuesday by the non-profit RAND Corporation found that only 3.9 million people have enrolled in the Obamacare exchanges--a much smaller number than the 7 million sign-ups touted by the Obama administration:

By our estimate, 3.9 million people are now covered through the state and federal marketplaces. This number is lower than current estimates of marketplace enrollment through the end of March from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), perhaps because some of the [Health Reform Opinion Study] data were collected in early March. All HROS data collection reported here ended on March 28, and therefore missed the last three days of the open enrollment period, during which time there was a surge in enrollment.

The study found that people gaining employer-provided insurance was the biggest reason why the uninsured rate has dropped in recent months:

Of those who were previously uninsured but are now insured, 7.2 million gained [employer-sponsored insurance], 3.6 million are now covered by Medicaid, 1.4 million signed up through the marketplaces, and the remainder gained coverage through other sources.

If the 1.4 million figure is correct, that means that less than 0.5 percent of the U.S. population gained insurance through the Obamacare exchanges. Of course, it's certainly possible that the Obama administration's estimates are closer to the mark. But even if that's the case, it's highly unlikely that more than 1 percent of the U.S. population gained insurance--that is, they were previously uninsured but are now insured--because of the Obamacare exchanges.

A study released Tuesday by the non-profit RAND Corporation found that only 3.9 million people have enrolled in the Obamacare exchanges--a much smaller number than the 7 million sign-ups touted by the Obama administration:

By our estimate, 3.9 million people are now covered through the state and federal marketplaces. This number is lower than current estimates of marketplace enrollment through the end of March from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), perhaps because some of the [Health Reform Opinion Study] data were collected in early March. All HROS data collection reported here ended on March 28, and therefore missed the last three days of the open enrollment period, during which time there was a surge in enrollment.

The study found that people gaining employer-provided insurance was the biggest reason why the uninsured rate has dropped in recent months:

Of those who were previously uninsured but are now insured, 7.2 million gained [employer-sponsored insurance], 3.6 million are now covered by Medicaid, 1.4 million signed up through the marketplaces, and the remainder gained coverage through other sources.

If the 1.4 million figure is correct, that means that less than 0.5 percent of the U.S. population gained insurance through the Obamacare exchanges. Of course, it's certainly possible that the Obama administration's estimates are closer to the mark. But even if that's the case, it's highly unlikely that more than 1 percent of the U.S. population gained insurance--that is, they were previously uninsured but are now insured--because of the Obamacare exchanges.

nice try smiley.

Furthermore, the timing of surveys may vary. Given the surge in enrollment at the end of March, whether that period is included in the survey may dramatically affect results. Thus, it should not be surprising that our estimates may not match perfectly.

Over the coming months and years, further change can be expected as people become more familiar with the law, the individual mandate penalties increase to their highest levels, the employer mandate kicks in, and other changes occur. But early evidence from our survey indicates that the ACA has already led to a substantial increase in insurance coverage. Consistent with the design of the ACA, this gain in insurance has come not only from new enrollment in the marketplaces, but also from new enrollment in employer coverage and Medicaid.

Signing people us is a joke of a milestone IMO. Until we see if the premiums skyrocket over the next 5 yrs we won't know. Obama planned this thing for him to be long gone by the time the truth comes in. By then he would just blame whatever President came after him or the repubs for watering it down or something.

Signing people us is a joke of a milestone IMO. Until we see if the premiums skyrocket over the next 5 yrs we won't know. Obama planned this thing for him to be long gone by the time the truth comes in. By then he would just blame whatever President came after him or the repubs for watering it down or something.

Yep instead of working with him on improving it right? so how many people have gotten insurance due to the repubs?

Signing people us is a joke of a milestone IMO. Until we see if the premiums skyrocket over the next 5 yrs we won't know. Obama planned this thing for him to be long gone by the time the truth comes in. By then he would just blame whatever President came after him or the repubs for watering it down or something.

What make you so confident that premiums will skyrocket? You conservatives always say this like it's already happened.

And what if they don't (and Obamacare is still in place)? Will you be disappointed?

The short version of the tale is that the Associated Press reported that House Republicans and Dems had agreed to do away with the cap on deductibles for small group policies inside the exchanges, giving small businesses more flexibility in the plans they can offer, a change sought by groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

After Drudge spun this as evidence that House Republicans had agreed to — gasp! —expand the law, Boehner’s office quickly put out a statement claiming Republicans had actually succeeded in repealing a part of it. Dems had agreed to this change, believing it improves the law, making this a bipartisan fix. But as Steve Benen notes, the fact that this sparked an outcry among Obamacare foes is a reminder that for them, the only acceptable goal is “to make the ACA as punishing and ineffective as possible, in the process creating demand for destroying the law in its entirety.”

Barack Obama wasted little time last week declaring victory as the deadline for enrollment in Affordable Care Act exchanges expired – well, more or less, anyway. The White House celebrated as it announced that 7.1 million consumers had signed up for health insurance through the federal and state exchanges, slightly exceeding their original goals and significantly outpacing expectations after the disastrous rollout of Obamacare last October. “The debate over repealing this law is over,” President Obama told the press on April 1. “The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.”

Last week, that sounded like wishful thinking. Two new studies released this week prove it.

Before we get to these studies, though, we should recognize why we need outside organizations to validate White House claims in the first place. The Department of Health and Human Services still has no way to quantify important data about those consumers signing up for health insurance through state and federal exchanges.

Related: 14.5 Million to Get Massive Premium Increases

More than six months after the initial rollout of Obamacare -- and four years after the ACA’s passage -- the systems designed by HHS still cannot determine basic and critical information about enrollments such as whether a premium payment has been made. Without a premium payment, a sign-up in the web portal does not mean coverage has been extended.

Rasmussen Reports
Despite the Obama administration’s claim that it exceeded its goal of seven million health insurance sign-ups by the end of March, unfavorable opinions of the new national health...

Furthermore, the systems were not designed to collect important demographic information such as pre-existing coverage, current health status, or even definite age ranges, even though the success of the Obamacare structure depends on getting previously uninsured healthy Americans locked into expensive comprehensive insurance.

Without the “young invincibles” providing new funding for risk pools that now have to cover older and less-healthy consumers under “community pricing” restrictions, premiums will escalate rapidly, forcing more consumers out of the system and triggering the dreaded “death spiral” for insurers.

Related: Obamacare’s Next Challenge: IRS Verification

In order to determine the scope of the celebration, then, we need outside surveys to give us an idea of the size and composition of the actual enrollment population in Obamacare. The first of the independent studies comes from the RAND Corporation, which studied the changes in the health insurance market between September 2013 – just before the rollout of the state exchanges – and the end of the open-enrollment period at the end of last month.

While the White House can claim credit for a net increase of 9.3 million insured and a lowered uninsured rate from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent, the data provides a significantly different picture than that painted by President Obama and the ACA’s advocates.

First, a significant amount of this increase comes from Medicaid enrollments, not private insurance. Almost six million people enrolled in Medicaid, and earlier studies showed that a relatively small number of those came from the expansion built into the ACA; most of these would have been Medicaid-eligible prior to the reform.

Another 8.2 million more people enrolled in employer-provided health care, as 7.1 million left the “other” category and another 1.6 million left the individual insurance markets. Only 3.9 million actually enrolled in insurance plans through state or federal exchanges – not 7.1 million as claimed by Obama. That number falls far short of even the lowered expectations issued by HHS and the White House earlier this year.

Related: The Coming Obamacare Shock for 170 Million Americans

Moreover, those who did enroll through the state exchanges didn’t provide the demographic lift and risk-pool support needed to prevent massive increases in either premiums or deductibles, or both, in the near future. Pharmacy benefit manager Express Scripts, which collected more data from insurers than HHS managed through its own exchanges, determined that the incoming enrollees require more medical attention than the previous risk pools, not less – which means that insurers will need to raise premiums even more than first thought.

Their new study shows, for instance, that the enrollees from state and federal exchanges have a 47 percent higher use of specialty medications than in commercial plans in general. “Increased volume for higher cost specialty drugs can have a significant impact on the cost burden for both plan sponsors and patients,” the report reminds readers. “Despite comprising less than 1 percent of all U.S. prescriptions,” the report continues, “specialty medications now account for more than a quarter of the country’s total pharmacy spend.”

The medications themselves show that the care costs will increase relative to the existing risk pools as well. The rate for HIV medications in Obamacare exchange plans is four times higher than in existing commercial plans. Medication prescriptions are 35 percent higher, and anti-seizure medication increases 27 percent. Ironically, the only category where exchange consumers have lower demand than commercial-plan customers is in contraception – the focus of a big political battle in the employer mandate.

Related: Obamacare--Taxpayers in the Hole for $1.5 Trillion

As Express Scripts, which studied changes in pharmacy benefits concludes that the ACA has succeeded in getting coverage to consumers who need it. However, that comes at a high cost for those who had their existing coverage canceled and saw their premiums and deductibles skyrocket as a result of Obamacare. Furthermore, the number of those who gained coverage may be even smaller than the RAND study concluded.

Of those who enrolled in an exchange plan, Express Scripts finds, 43 percent already had Express Scripts coverage in 2013 – and at least some of the other 57 percent may have had coverage under another prescription-medication management service. If the total number of actual exchange enrollees is 3.9 million, the final number of previously uninsured exchange consumers may be only as high as 2.23 million.

The debate on the law is far from over. When the next round of premium increases hits over the summer, and the market for employer-provided health insurance undergoes the same kind of massive disruption as the individual market did over the last six months, the debate over the honesty and integrity of the Obama administration may hit new levels of intensity.

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:

Obamacare is a “Haves and Have Nots’ Health System
Sexting and Drunk Driving Lead to Job Security at VA
$6 Billion Goes Missing at State Department

Not surprising Obama fudging numbers and his idiot, blind followers just nodding their heads in approval without even attempting to find out the truth. Truth is secondary to feeling all warm and fuzzy.

The insurance expansion under the Affordable Care Act will cost $1.383 trillion over the next decade, more than $100 billion less than previous forecasts, the Congressional Budget Office said Monday.

The nonpartisan budget office’s report, an update to projections from February, shows the law costing less than in previous estimates in part because of the broad and persistent slowdown in the growth of health care costs.